Keep Telling Yourself, This Man Is Barking Nuts…

…and the only possible choice for sane people is to vote for Obamney, who will continue the sound and sensible policies of Caesarocorporate Empire and Police State that have made us so secure, prosperous and confident about the future. This man lives in cloud cuckoo land out of touch with reality, but the Party of Indefinite Detention and Unilateral Murder and the Party of More War and Deficits (but I repeat myself) are sober realists and they are our only choices. It’s one grave evil or the other. We must not think outside the box. And we must cheer that the Just, Wise, and Good Party Elders have forbidden this man to speak. Our task is to applaud the wisdom of our betters and get behind Obamney. If there is anything the gospel is clear about, it’s that Christians have an absolute duty to knuckle under to principalities and powers and willingly support grave evil when the State tells us to.

The ‘this man is not barking nuts’ argument is that people don’t think Paul is a little off his base because of what he believes about this or that issue (they sometimes think he is extreme in certain cases), but they think he’s a little off base because of the way he acts, and some of his loftier appraisals of himself. For instance, it’s one thing to tell the team you’re the one to help them be all they can be. It’s another to tell the team they’re a bunch of morons, dolts, they suck, and you’re the only one in the history of the sport who can single-handedly win every game. That right there is enough to give many folks pause.

Timbot2000

Huh?

Citation Please

Dave G.

What do you mean? That Paul basically sets himself apart from almost the entire government where everyone else is screwing things up (though he has softened that, in all fairness, since his son was elected)? That’s like asking to provide a citation that Washington was too the first president. Watch about any campaign speech during the primaries. When you cross out those who Paul hasn’t blasted, it’s a pretty small company that ends up being pretty much Paul. Again, nothing wrong with saying you’re the one to lead the team. Something unsettling with someone who acts as if he’s the only one on the team that’s not a screw up.

ivan_the_mad

Nah. You make a claim, you back it up. That’s how this works.

Dave G.

I guess I’m a bit taken aback. I mean, it’s one of the foundations of his campaign. Has anyone watched his campaign speeches, his debates, his interviews? That’s like saying prove Rush Limbaugh isn’t a liberal Democrat. I shouldn’t have to prove it to anyone who is even mildly engaged in the debate. That Paul sets himself apart from a Washington he considers to be broken (and more often than not, always has been) is as much a part of his stump speech as Limbaugh not being a liberal Democrat. Again, common knowledge to anyone paying attention. Google Ron Paul Campaign speech, grab some popcorn, and be amazed.

This is especially true since so many Paul supporters seem to see this as a feather in his cap, not as a problem. Perhaps it’s just the way I framed it that has been the issue – making it a problem rather than a ‘Boy, that Ron Paul sure has Washington’s number!’ approach.

ivan_the_mad

Yadda yadda. You made a claim. Timbot2000 asked for a citation. Personally, I could care less about what you guys are talking about. But it bugs me when, asked for a citation, somebody responds with “It’s common knowledge” or “You go look it up on Google”.

You made the claim. You were asked for a citation. You back it up.

ivan_the_mad

couldn’t care less*

Dave G.

OK, well that took all of three seconds. Google ‘Ron Paul blasts….’ and start adding up the results. Within about three pages, you have Ron Paul blasting everything that isn’t Rand Paul. That’s a man who puts himself against everything else. Like I said, it’s one thing to say you’re the best. It’s quite another to say you’re the only.

Oh, I know, it’s not an actual quote. But it’s sort of like Romney. There are some folks out there – some mind you – who think Romney changes his positions simply for political convenience. Now, that’s tough to prove isn’t it? I mean, it’s not like you can get a quote or a source from Romney saying ‘as a matter of fact, I’ve changed my views for political convenience.’ And yet, there are a few out there who think that’s just what he does. So it’s not so much simply finding a quote that says ‘Ron Paul says everyone in Washington is dumb and wrong and I’m the only one who can make it right, April 18, 2012, the Washington Examiner.’ But taken as a whole, and looking at the body of his speeches and writings, it’s darn near impossible not to see it as the core of his message (and that he’s usually anything but shy about blasting everyone else involved).

And again, the strange thing is just how many Paul supporters out there see this as a feather in Paul’s cap, that he goes after everything and everyone in Washington. There’s entire websites dedicated to ‘Paul: The only one in Washington you can trust!’ Perhaps since it was never seen as a negative that’s why the shock, who knows?

Dave G.

There are entire websites… bad edit.

ivan_the_mad

It’s incumbent on you to provide support for you claim, not for people questioning your claim. Timbot2000 asked for a citation, not for you to discourse at length about the very thing for which he asked you for a citation in support thereof.

http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

I don’t think Ron Paul is saying he’s the only one who could do it. But he is the only one doing it right now, and the only one who has a long track record of doing it (well, there is Gary Johnson, but he’s pro-choice, so eliminates himself from consideration).

Dave G.

Not in those exact words, though he comes close. But when you look at the whole of his campaigns, it’s clear he buys into the ‘all of Washington is broken – except me’ message. Which is probably why he appeals to so many who think all of Washington is broken – except him. Doesn’t mean I don’t think he’s right about some things. But there is an off-balance about him, a twitch in his approach that makes me think he’s not the one I’d want at the bridge if anything went down.

Dave G.

Sorry, that’s my proof, the source, the citation: The overall record of Paul’s speeches, his writings, his debates. If you don’t see it, you don’t want to. Is there a quote? No. Just like there’s no quote where Obama says he wants to crush religious liberty, or where Romney says he changes his views for expediency. Now maybe those assumptions bug you too. I don’t know. But for me, I do think Obama has set himself against religious liberty, and on purpose; I think Romney does change his views for political expediency; and I even go so far as to look at the overall record, and conclude that Paul spends his campaigns blasting anything and everything under the sun that anyone else in Washington does or tries and sees himself as the only one capable of doing better. But then, who knows, maybe Rush Limbaugh is a liberal Democrat and I’ve just been mistaken all these years.

ivan_the_mad

“Sorry, that’s my proof, the source, the citation”

It can’t possibly be either a source or a citation when you’ve provided no source and cited nothing.

Dave G.

So what you’re saying, Ivan, is that as a matter of fact you don’t believe in context. Romney does not change his views for politics. Why? Because there is not source proving it. That’s fine I guess. If a person says 2+2 isn’t enough, you have to cite 4, I suppose that’s one way of seeing it. I’ll expect the same from now on of course, and not just regarding Ron Paul.

ivan_the_mad

FFS man. I never addressed your thesis, I have no idea why you keep including Romney and Paul and Limbaugh in your responses to me. When asked for a citation, you made bullshit maneuvers. The fancy term is ad populum, look it up. Then you told Timbot2000 to look up proof for your own claim on Google. That’s effing lazy, it is definitively not incumbent on someone questioning your proposition to prove it for you.

Dave G.

Please don’t use Latin terms when they don’t apply. I am appealing to common sense and observation, not some majority opinion. My BS, as you say, has been to explain why naturally there is no citation where Paul says “I’m the only one in Washington who is right and everyone else is wrong and stupid.” Though he has come dangerously close, he obviously wouldn’t say it that way. Any more than Obama would say ‘As a matter of fact, I do want to crush religious liberty,” or Romney would say, ‘As a matter of fact, I am out of touch with the average voter and tend to change my beliefs for political expediency.’

What I said about Paul was based on watching and listening to him for the last 5 years. The one thing you can count on in this world is that no matter what happens in Washington, or who does what in our government, Paul will be there to bitch. We kill Osama bin Laden? Paul bitches. People die in a natural disaster and the county pulls together to support and pray? Paul bitches. Paul Ryan releases a budget plan that raises the ire of many in Washington as well as the Catholic Bishops? Paul bitches, but only because Ryan doesn’t go far enough (his bitching can’t seem to be in line with anyone else’s). Paul is the proverbial kid in the bleachers who spends his time telling everyone how all the players, coaches, officials, and everyone on the field sucks. And he tends to appeal to those who do likewise. Bitchito ergo sum, that’s Paul’s basic motto in a nutshell.

Asking for ‘a citation’ in this case is like asking for a citation that Gingrich only thinks of himself, or that Bill Clinton is a narcissist. These things are foundations upon which entire political outlooks are based – just read this or any one of a thousand blogs. They are based on observation, on putting the numbers together, of assembling the puzzle of a person’s political career. Not because there’s a citation that proves Gingrich is those things, but as has been pointed out many times, it’s based upon simple observation. The same with Paul. Can I ‘prove’ Paul thinks he’s the only one in Washington apart from his son who is worth anything by pointing to a single citation? Of course not. But having watched him for five years, I would put my money on it.

And if you think that approach is BS, all I can say is I’ll keep my eyes open for future posts and see if you appeal in any way to anything but a citation in your observations.

ivan_the_mad

LOL you’re very amusing, whether you mean to be or not.

Dave G.

Yeah, it’s always a good time to watch someone try to feed the monkeys.

ds

Agree with all you said, Dave G.

Also, he is barking mad or has no problem cozying up to the barking mad when it suits him (see John Birch society, newsletters, Alex Jones show appearances, etc.). You tell me what is worse, nutcase or dishonest exploiter of nutcases?

Don’t ask for citations, this is plenty for discussion and mostly my opinion. I don’t give a shit how factual you think it is, man has proven himself enough of a dishonest self-aggrandizing nutcase/asshole for me.

Paul H

The problem is that, to my knowledge, Ron Paul is not on the ballot for president in November. He was on the ballot for the Republican primaries earlier this year, and I voted for him then. I wish that more people had voted for him then, so that he would be on the ballot in November, but sadly that did not happen. While I find Romney only slightly less bad than Obama, and while I can certainly understand why a faithful Catholic might refuse to vote for either Romney or Obama, I do not understand the point of promoting Ron Paul in the general election when he is not on the ballot. (But again, I wish that he was on the ballot.)

Mark Windsor

It’s too late. We’re going to have to pay for our decades of hubris, economically and spiritually. We could elect Ron Paul in the next election, and it won’t make a bit of difference.

http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

Right now we are going through a sea change the likes of which this country has never faced, literally. The last time the international order reshuffled itself this profoundly, the US was not yet in existence. The Westphalian order that came into being at the close of the 30 Years War is breaking down. Ron Paul is farsighted enough to see that we must meet the new world with something new. For that I tip my hat and respect both his vision and his courage. I think his son’s generation is the one that is going to bring that transition to fruition.

I do not particularly like the new order I see coming. Then again I didn’t particularly like the old one either so mostly it’s a wash at best. I do see a profound danger coming up of a G-Zero world where essentially any little tyrant who wants to grab for power has no overwhelming hegemon equivalent to dissuade him. Ron Paul’s solutions currently don’t handle that problem. And that’s where I find I cannot support him. We can do better than that.

ds

I see a profound danger of a Zero-G world, where everything not bolted down, including people and the atmosphere, just fly off into outer space.

Ted Seeber

My problem with Ron Paul is the same as my problem with *most* moral relativist Christians- their philosophical base (in Ron Paul’s case, his economics in specific) is based in atheism, not in Christianity.

Marthe Lépine

“I do see a profound danger coming up of a G-Zero world where essentially any little tyrant who wants to grab for power has no overwhelming hegemon equivalent to dissuade him. Ron Paul’s solutions currently don’t handle that problem.” What makes you believe that a big tyrant who wants to grab for power (e.g. the US, as I see them from outside) would be correct in trying to dissuade “any little tyrant”? I definitely do not think that the world would be in a better state. ..